Can i have comments/debunks on this please?

[Prester John]

http://www.viewzone.com/nemesis.html

mentioned at sciforums.

to add, the original poster seemed genuinely interested and i don't posess the knowledge to provide a good debunk.

PJ

[A.DIM]

I find this fascinating.
Can there really be a "debunk" for it?

Whitmire agrees it's too early to say definitely there's something out there.

"Until it's found, you can never be overly confident," he says. "We know in science you can be fooled by statistics." But he adds, "If I was betting, it's better than 50-50 odds that it's there."

I, myself, am not much of a betting man. :D

[Gmann]

Who's to say. It may be entirely possible that there is a brown dwarf which we have not detected. there have been several researchers who say that this is possible. Something like this is too soon to attempt to debunk since they have made no claims like..."the red personna...this web cam showed...the bottom of my beer can had a...Etc. It remains an interesting hypothesis, which I'm sure we will see something coming years before it gets here, and maybe have a chance to change the outcome.

[Dr_Von_Loon]

It seems a plausible scenario. Only time will tell as we don not know every celestial body out there. I think more study/observation in this area is needed.

Keep watching the skies..........

[TriangleMan]

Matese does think that there might be a large object, possibly a brown dwarf, in a distant orbit around the solar system and has spent some time trying to find it. Unfortunately for him a lot of kooks have pointed to his work as support for the existance of PX, something he wants no part of. JP, I suggest doing a Google for Matese and look up some of his work and interviews. The thing to point out to people is that Matese's theory of a large object in distant orbit does not mean PX/aliens.

[Archer17]

Intriguing article but it's just speculation at this point. I won't rule out undiscovered bodies at the fringe of our solar system and agree with others here that it might have some merit. Time will tell, eh? :wink:

[decarmony]

This is not an item that needs to be debunked. It is an opinion based on scientific research that is quite interesting and deserves further investigation. As technology produces a new generation of telescopes, I"m sure we will be getting much more information on this subgect. This has nothing in common with the easily debunkable planet x that the modern day chicken littles are whinning about.

[CaptGlenn]

I will agree decarmony, this does not need to be debunked.

The studies are suggesting the possibility of an object that orbits far beyond our Sun that may occasionally interact with the Kuiper Belt and Oort Cloud. There is some data that could suggest such a thing. This is science in action.

Unless I am misreading the research, they do not speculate or suggest that a large planet is in an orbit that sends it hurtling towards our Sun, past our inner planets and back out again. That false interpretation is left to those such as Hazzlewood, Nancy, McCanney and others who tend to ignore the laws of physics and logical thinking.

Glenn

[BoredHugeKrill]

agreed with several others here. This does not need to be "debunked". It's genuine research that suggests that there might be some other object out there we don't know about, but hasn't yet proven its existence.

Based on my quick skim read, the evidence looks quite slim so far; what I think can be said is that there is no data inconsistent with the hypothesis

Krill

[WolfKC]

Maybe overall it's reasonable, but I dislike the wording of the opening statement.

This meant they had two options: rewrite the most time-honoured of the laws of physics, or "invent" a new planet to account for the extra gravitational pull. Compared to Newton's reputation, an eighth planet seemed much less massive and Neptune was discovered.
Maybe it's a minor point but I can imaging some GLPers twisting this into suggesting Neptune was invented to preserve Newton's laws of physics, which are incorect compared to Zeta laws of physics. #-o Newton's laws were used to discover Neptune, rather than Neptune being invented for the sake of preserving Newton's laws. And in any case Newton's 'massive' reputation wasn't a factor so much as the math used to narrow down the location of where to look.
I just dont like the way that line is worded. [-(

[Outcast]

maybe it is Nibiru:

http://www.darkstar1.co.uk/

[SarahMc]

The only thing I question about this work is the small number of samples used. If I remember correctly, there were only 70-80 comets used in the sample to derive the hypothesis.

Interesting, yes. As stated, no need to debunk, just to question the amount of data and realise that more work has to be done.